So, historians would need video or photographic or minutes-of-the -meeting kind of evidence to believe the eye-witness accounts of a particular ancient event. LOL.<quoted text>
If you continue to read him, he is claiming that since the Bible claims many people witnessed a particular event, it HAD to be true - ignoring the application of universally acceptable Historical methods of investigation within the discipline which would assert OTHERWISE.
Eye-witness accounts may be true and can be labelled subjective evidence.
Even in this hi tech age many of us are direct witness to many intriguing, funny, sporting, aesthetic, political, family or paranormal events that are not written about or not recorded on cam or photographed.
The principle is important not the details or the way it is explained. For example, most scientists claim that insentient matter is capable of manifesting sentience, or that an entity of lower information content is capable of giving rise to an entity characterized by a higher degree of information content or that random movements can produce order and so on. These airy claims can be dismissed outright as the innate logical principles are wrong and besides there's no proof to corroborate any of this.